68degrees
Well-known
According to my calculations 35mm frame scanned at the Epson V500 max setting of 12800 comes out to 219 Megapixel image, can that be right?
And a good digital is what 20Mb? What is the comparison? Isnt scanned 35mm then much better res than any digital? Why then is a flat bed said to not be strong enough to scan 35mm?
and can 35mm be scanned at 219 Mp and printed at nice size of 3 feet by 4 feet? to view from 6 feet away?
And a good digital is what 20Mb? What is the comparison? Isnt scanned 35mm then much better res than any digital? Why then is a flat bed said to not be strong enough to scan 35mm?
and can 35mm be scanned at 219 Mp and printed at nice size of 3 feet by 4 feet? to view from 6 feet away?
matt_mcg2
Established
That'd be great if the Epson V500 could actually resolve anything like 12800dpi. It can't. There was a thread recently about it. The more sceptical people reckon it's something liek 1600dpi(ish). My own experience is I can get more, but it's still only around 2400dpi (possibly getting closer to 3200dpi with the right film and settings). Film flatness matters, for example, so I get better results with some film than others.
There's little point in rehashing film versus digital debates, but in my own personal experience a good 10 - 15Mp digital camera easily matches 35mm film. I still shoot 35mm film, because I like using film cameras, like the tonality of film, and can't afford digital cameras as good as the film cameras I own. But I don't think anyone really thinks any more that a good digital camera doesn't match 35mm film for resolution.
Matt
There's little point in rehashing film versus digital debates, but in my own personal experience a good 10 - 15Mp digital camera easily matches 35mm film. I still shoot 35mm film, because I like using film cameras, like the tonality of film, and can't afford digital cameras as good as the film cameras I own. But I don't think anyone really thinks any more that a good digital camera doesn't match 35mm film for resolution.
Matt
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Several film and camera manufacturers have expressed to me the opinion that a perfectly exposed fine grain transparency made with a first class lens, perfectly focused, is equivalent to about 18-22 megapixels, always with serious riders and qualifications. This corresponds to my own experience. The highest estimate I've ever seen is 35 megapixels, but only with certain kinds of subject (remember the difference between the random array of film and the regular array of a digital sensor) and the lowest, basically, has depended on what someone is trying to sell: I've seen it asserted that 6-8 megapixels will equate to a typical hand-held 35mm shot with ISO 400 colour neg film and a kit zoom, and yes, that's probably tight too.
And, as Matt points out, the likelihood of a flatbed having an optical resolution much above 1600 dpi is slender, not least because of focus issues. At 3200 dpi (achievable with dedicated 35mm scanners) you're recording grain or dye-cloud structure. Is this 'meaningful' resolution? Yes and no. Yes, in that it helps capture the film 'look'; no, in that it's no longer a matter of capturing additional subject matter on the film.
Cheers,
R.
And, as Matt points out, the likelihood of a flatbed having an optical resolution much above 1600 dpi is slender, not least because of focus issues. At 3200 dpi (achievable with dedicated 35mm scanners) you're recording grain or dye-cloud structure. Is this 'meaningful' resolution? Yes and no. Yes, in that it helps capture the film 'look'; no, in that it's no longer a matter of capturing additional subject matter on the film.
Cheers,
R.
68degrees
Well-known
so you are saying that the 3200 dpi limitation is not in the scanner but the film? and this is true for black and white also?
redisburning
Well-known
black and white does not have dye clouds, it has silver crystals.
t-grained b&w films are capable of resolving a higher terminal resolution than any current 35mm digital, period. however, with digital you keep higher contrast at finer resolutions until you simply run out of pixels.
the truly high resolution films may not ever be matched by 35mm cameras if we see a real slow down in sensor resolution increases. this might be the case if makers decide that a certain level is enough and would rather spend their R&D money on other factors such as CFAs, signal-to-noise, etc.
but even if the film is capable of resolving 50% contrast at >100 lp/mm you have two issues:
1. no lens can even come close to that potential
2. good luck getting it off the film
this may seem obvious but 35mm has always been about "good enough". with the best current emulsions, 35mm film has passed the minimum necessary level to print to very large sizes as long as reasonable viewing distances are kept.
and of course there is always medium and large format.
t-grained b&w films are capable of resolving a higher terminal resolution than any current 35mm digital, period. however, with digital you keep higher contrast at finer resolutions until you simply run out of pixels.
the truly high resolution films may not ever be matched by 35mm cameras if we see a real slow down in sensor resolution increases. this might be the case if makers decide that a certain level is enough and would rather spend their R&D money on other factors such as CFAs, signal-to-noise, etc.
but even if the film is capable of resolving 50% contrast at >100 lp/mm you have two issues:
1. no lens can even come close to that potential
2. good luck getting it off the film
this may seem obvious but 35mm has always been about "good enough". with the best current emulsions, 35mm film has passed the minimum necessary level to print to very large sizes as long as reasonable viewing distances are kept.
and of course there is always medium and large format.
Stuart John
Well-known
The v500 is good for about 1200-1600 ppi the lens in the v500 is just not good enough for any more. I usually leave my V500 at 2400ppi maybe on a good day it could in my dreams achieve 2400ppi not very likely though.
